In Re: Andreco Lott

Movant was convicted of one count of conspiring to commit bank robbery, two counts of bank robbery and aiding and abetting, two counts of conspiring to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery and aiding and abetting, and four counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting. Movant seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging his convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) for using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, as well as his convictions for bank robbery and conspiring to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery and aiding and abetting. The court concluded that movant has failed to make the requisite showing where Johnson v. United States does not provide a basis for authorizing a successive section 2255 motion challenging a conviction under section 924(c); the bank robbery and conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery statutes that movant was convicted under do not contain language similar to the provision that the Supreme Court found unconstitutionally vague in Johnson; and movant failed to make a prima facie showing that Mathis v. United States and McDonnell v. United States set forth new rules of constitutional law that have been made retroactive to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for authorization and the motion to hold his case in abeyance. View "In Re: Andreco Lott" on Justia Law